We should really fight this, as it will limit what we can do with our computers. It will also set a precedent for letting business interests directly make policy with out the input of elected officials.

Broadcast Flag
Hollywood is pushing the Federal Communications Commission to forcibly implant copy-protection technology in digital television receivers. The FCC is weighing a plan to mandate this "broadcast flag" which will govern what you are allowed to do with the digital television you receive and will likely take away many of the fair-use rights you have today.

This "Flag" will stop the use of any type of standard recording equipment, and manufactures that don't implement the recording ban will be braking the law. This will stifle innovation, such events as the rise of Personal Video Recorders (PVRs - like TiVo) would never have happened. Also, this will be a real inconvenience to people who work late.

Please help protect your/our rights. We won this battle with VCRs in '84, let's not lose it this time! Send a message to the FCC:
http://www.digitalconsumer.org/bcastflag/f...fcccomment.html

Null vote!

What's the point of setting up a poll for this? You don't get any useful information out of it. It looks more like propaganda.

I'm trying to make people realize that they have a choice, there are things they can do to influence the direction the US government* is taking. Most people act by inaction, and even that is a choice. When you can't record or transfer onto your computer, or a videocassette, you will feel the results of you inaction.

If people want to act, they should look at the above link and also:
http://bpdg.blogs.eff.org/

If you are interested in digital rights in general go to:
http://www.eff.org/

*Non-us citizens may want to comment also, as the precedent being set is a dangerous one.

As you say it is an issue that only concern americans. And when discussing things that are wrong in USA, I feel that whether you can copy your tv-shows in the digital or only in the analog domain is fairly low on my ranking of the most critical problems. Should I mention some that I feel more urgent? I'll do anyway...

- Human rights - death penalty for underaged, etc
- Using military force to "secure" the oil resources in the world
- Wasting world resources - 1/4 of the worlds energy (effect to use correct dimension) is spent by 1/25 of the population.
.
.
.
- Draining europe of all the good hockey players
.
.
.
- Trying to uphold the copyright laws. (My wording of your problem)


But it is good that at least some people react on the matters they feel are important. I'll give you credits for that...

Chill out,
I go to the war protests also, but some people support the war (any of the 3+ that the US in involved with). But, I didn't think that anything more then this belonged on an audio website.


What you call "Trying to uphold the copyright laws." , I call "Betraying the original intent of copyrights".

Take a look (8mb)

To the admin who de-polled this topic:

This was a poll. And it was a poll for a reason. I was trying to drive home that everyone who cares about what they can do with there computers, who doesn’t act is making a choice to loose the rights they are enjoying.

Please make this a poll, and re-instate the 0, 7 vote.

A "flag" sounds very easy to subvert. SCMS for DAT is easily defeated by stripping one of the bits from the data stream. Audio Alchemy's DTI v1.0 anti-jitter device was widely employed to achieve this end.

The thing is they do not want such devices made. And they want it to be a criminal offense to make/own/use them even if it is on media you paid for.

What good is copyright to the world if it never dies? If copyright as it exists today and as they want it to exist tomorrow was around in Shakespear's time you would likely have to pay an exorbant ammount for a license just to be able to perform one of his plays. At some point everything is going to be perpetually copyrighted into posterity. And it will smother creativity. It has always been that along with new creations each generation provides new interpritations of old works. That is part of creativity. And it will not help matters to always have to be wondering if you can sketch or paint something for fear that it will remotly resemble something that someone else has done.

I do believe in copyright. But I dont think it should be extended or expanded. Once the creator is gone the copyright should not last much longer. It should allow the creator time to benefit from their creation. Corporations have the possibility of an indefinate life span and wish to extend copyright to match so that they can milk it indefinatly and not be bothered to promote or sponsor anything new. That is evil. Loathsome. And should not be tollerated.

Sure there are other things in life to worry about than this. But that does not mean we should ignore this.

You can never say, do, or think of anything ever again. I have a copyright on that.

I like your view on this Neo Neko, couldn't have said it better myself.

Any thought, inspired by this statement is property of the author and object of applicable copyright laws, its consideration is strictly prohibited.

BTW these words are not mine (© V. Pelevin), just a rubbish translation attempt.

You have commited an unauthorized translation of copyrighted text. Such actions may lead to irreversible damages caused to the author. Please remove the translation from the web page located at http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....=ST&f=17&t=4902 .
If mentioned above will not be done within two ("2") working days, we shall be forced to take legal actions against you.
edit: added time period. man i edit too much... This is NIIT (Nearly Invisible Invision Text) © SK1

Sorry, SK1, I don't have enough grounds to concede your authority of taking the proposed actions.
And removing posts is against the rules.
So see ya all in 1-3 years.
UCIIT (Unedited Completely Invisible Invision Text)

Hehehehe. My lawyers will all be in touch with you shortly for unauthorised thought processes. Please leave your doors ulocked unless you don't mind them being torn from the hinges. I have not fed them for a week.

There is always something more important in life, but that does not mean you should loose or get lost in the details. Keep giving to UNICEF and the Sally Struthers refrigerator fund but take the time to fight copyright expansion as well. Copyright expansion is like drugs. Just Say No.

I cooled down now.. Very OT, Sweden has not been in war for almost 200 years now, but that is not anything one can be proud of so if anything we here should rather been to peace protests (during for example ww2)

Anything can be in the Off-topic forum you know!




I listened to the speech and clearly he has some valid points (e.g. "Mickey mouse law"). But he has many invalid points as well. E.g. he compares the copyright laws of today with those that existed 1790 a couple of times. This is nonsense when you consider the possiblities to copy meterial at that time. The only reasonable way to copy a book then was to go to a printshop and have it printed (probably in large numbers to avoid too high cost per each copy), and so that was regulated in the copyright law form the 18:th century. Today with digital media it is much much easier to copy material for anybody who has computer/cd-burner/etc. so the copyright laws have to be adjusted to cover that. This is common sense, don't you think?

Copyright is copyright. Why should it have changed much since 1790? The medium is irrelevant. If someone created it they have the possibility for copyright. If I created a version of Michelangelo's David sculpted completely from dry macaroni I could likely get a copyright on it. Not that other people could not do renditions of the statue. But that macaroni version would be mine alone. Is macaroni a medium covered under copyright? Nope. It is most often the idea and not the medium that is subject to copyright. Copying is copying no matter how it is done or how hard it is. Do we need expanded copyright when what we have now is so poorly implemented and enforced? Should we not tell them to get their act together on what they have now before we make considderation for expansion of their power? Then again why should we care if they expand it. Sure it will be just more inconvinience on our part but their natural ineptness might somehow provide a loophole or safe window of operation.

Personally I would rather leave nothing to chance. My answer to them is to get their frelling act together before we give them anything else. Every suggestion or technology they have fronted to date only hampers or infringes on their customers rights and usability and will not stop or have any effect on those they should be trying to stop.

You want to stop massive P2P trading of copyrighted works? You want to bring down distributed P2P networks? Here's how. First you identify major offenders. Then you find out where they are(a relatively easy task). You present your data to the courts and law enforcement. Then you go bust down some doors confiscate, incarcerate, and make an example of them to all their P2P piers. Strike fear in them. Make them considder the reprocussions of their actions. That is the best detterant. Right now it is all happy kiddies in P2P land. Running around thinking they are anonymous and untrackable ignorant to the truth of their vulnerability. A few well placed kills in the field and they will all run back to the holes called their real life and hide trying to be good little citizens. They have done this to some extent in the past. But not as much as they should or often enough.

I don't understand all you say here, but i will reply to what I think you said - correct me if I misunderstood you.

I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how the copyright laws are actually implemented. But for me it makes sense to copyright "contents" and not ideas. It would be horrible if the idea itself would be illegal to reproduce. Instead I find it natural to protect the "product". And then the medium does matter, no?

I agree fully on that the copyright laws we have today could be used better.

Contents yes. Ideas to a limited extent. Medium no. Medium is covered by pattent and not copyright.

http://www.copyright.gov/faq.html#q1